Allhailodinwrote:
Its still 50% the fathers. The child is simply currently in the possession of the mother. Its being "Lent" to the mother by the father.

I can be owner of say an Xbox and lend it to you, but its still mine even tho its in your possession. That means I have say over what you are allowed to do with my Xbox. Same concept.

Well thats how I look at it.

Its the fathers possession but its just in the possession of the mother until the birth.

Your analogy is logical; however the baby is also 50% of the mothers and in addition to that, it is in the mother's body.

My opinion on this matter is that the two should both be in agreement on whether or not abort the fetus, however when neither can agree with each other, it must be the woman's choice on whether to abort or not.

That embryo is in the woman's body, it is within her and can't be separated from her, so it's not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, it's about her body.

The way I see it, is in both parties cannot reach a consensus then no abortion shall be granted.

Its equally both of theirs, therefor both of their (mother and father) signature should be required to get the abortion(along with other identity checks so neither party cannot forger the others signature).

I look at what you are saying as

If both you and I paid out exactly 50% for a PS3(PS3 > Xbox) , even tho the PS3 is both equally ours. Who ever happens to currently have possession of the PS3 at the moment has 100% of the say, the other party has 0% of the say, even tho the PS3 is both equally ours.

And that doesn't seem right to me.

Its either both parties agree or the answer is no.

This also prevents things like the mother from getting an abortion out of spite or something.

The way I see it, is in both parties cannot reach a consensus then no abortion shall be granted.

The way I see it is, its equally both of theirs, therefor both of their (mother and father) signature should be required to get the abortion(along with other identity checks so neither party cannot forger the others signature).

I look at what you are saying as

If both you and I paid out exactly 50% for a PS3(PS3 > Xbox) , even tho the PS3 is both equally ours. Who ever happens to currently have possession of the PS3 at the moment has 100% of the say, the other party has 0% of the say, even tho the PS3 is both equally ours.

And that doesn't seem right to me.

Its either both parties agree or the answer is no.

This also prevents things like the mother from getting an abortion out of spite or something.

I personally don't see it as that.

The analogy as I said before was logical; however you are forgetting that the woman has the baby inside her body and her body is her rights. The final decision (if neither party can agree) will have to be the mother's because it is the mother's body and the mother's rights. If she cannot have a say then that's infringing upon her rights of her body. Even if the baby is equally both the mother's and the father's, I cannot deny the fact that it's the mother's body.

The man and the woman should try to agree on whether or not to get the abortion, but if they do not agree, it should be the mother's decision, because as I said before, it is her rights and her body.

For example, if neither party agrees, if the mother doesn't want the abortion, she shouldn't.
If neither party agrees, and if the mother wants the abortion, then she'll get the abortion.

Furthermore, I don't see as to how a mother would just get an abortion out of spite. Abortion is not an easy choice. Why would anyone use abortion to hurt or humiliate the other party?

The analogy as I said before was logical; however you are forgetting that the woman has the baby inside her body and her body is her rights. The final decision (if neither party can agree) will have to be the mother's because it is the mother's body and the mother's rights. If she cannot have a say then that's infringing upon her rights of her body. Even if the baby is equally both the mother's and the father's, I cannot deny the fact that it's the mother's body.

The man and the woman should try to agree on whether or not to get the abortion, but if they do not agree, it should be the mother's decision, because as I said before, it is her rights and her body.

For example, if neither party agrees, if the mother doesn't want the abortion, she shouldn't.
If neither party agrees, and if the mother wants the abortion, then she'll get the abortion.

Furthermore, I don't see as to how a mother would just get an abortion out of spite. Abortion is not an easy choice. Why would anyone use abortion to hurt or humiliate the other party?

Well the child is an interpendent organism from the mother.

It may be the mothers body in which the child resides. But the child is a interdependent parasitic organism. It is its own entity. it is technically a part of the mother. But it is different from a spare organ like a kidney or your appendix.

Getting an abortion out of spite would be easy if the parents were fighting over something. Its like the ultimate screw you. People are jerks, they do stuff like that everyday.

If I was a pregnant wife and was fighting with my husband and was really steaming mad at him, I might go "You know what, I'm going to really piss you off and I'm going to abort your kid, then I'm going to take it one step further and get a tubal ligation so you won't be able to have another one" But that's just me.

It may be the mothers body in which the child resides. But the child is a interdependent parasitic organism. It is its own entity. it is technically a part of the mother. But it is different from a spare organ like a kidney or your appendix.

Getting an abortion out of spite would be easy if the parents were fighting over something. Its like the ultimate screw you. People are jerks, they do stuff like that everyday.

If I was a pregnant wife and was fighting with my husband and was really steaming mad at him, I might go "You know what, I'm going to really piss you off and I'm going to abort your kid, then I'm going to take it one step further and get a tubal ligation so you won't be able to have another one" But that's just me.

The child depends on the mother, but the mother does not depend on the child, so they're literally not interdependent as you said. And yes, I would myself describe the fetus as having a parasitic property in a perspective.

However, even when it is an individual and should be treated as such, two people cannot reside in one body (If you understand my intentions).

Again, one will automatically have veto over the other. The one who has the rights is the mother, so the mother decides whether or not she should get the abortion. The mother has interperonal relationships, has thoughts, memories, emotions, and is conscious. The fetus does not have any of that; however it has a potential for that. Even with the potential for all of those things, the mother still has veto power.

And really??? People would actually do that?
...
Even though I think that's a horrible thing for anyone to do, I still have to go by the moral rights a human has; the mother still gets to decide. As hard as that may be, even in a horrible scenario such as you explained, I still have to go by this; it is still her choice as it is her body.

The child depends on the mother, but the mother does not depend on the child, so they're literally not interdependent as you said. And yes, I would myself describe the fetus as having a parasitic property in a perspective.

The unborn child is a parasite. Much like a tapeworm, it leeches resources off of the host( its mother).

However, even when it is an individual and should be treated as such, two people cannot reside in one body (If you understand my intentions).

So if 2 fully grow adults / teenagers can share a body, why can a mother and child not ?

Again, one will automatically have veto over the other. The one who has the rights is the mother, so the mother decides whether or not she should get the abortion. The mother has interperonal relationships, has thoughts, memories, emotions, and is conscious. The fetus does not have any of that; however it has a potential for that. Even with the potential for all of those things, the mother still has veto power.

Thoughts, memories, emotions, and consciousnesses do not define a human. Tons of other species have all these as well.

The only think that defines a human is its DNA. Which even a single human cell has. So a multicellular organisms with human DNA are human too.

And really??? People would actually do that? ...

Oh yeah, happens every day.

Even though I think that's a horrible thing for anyone to do, I still have to go by the moral rights a human has; the mother still gets to decide. As hard as that may be, even in a horrible scenario such as you explained (with the potential mother being heartless ), I still have to go by this; it is still her choice as it is her body.

Moral rights ? Wtf is that. The only rights I know of are legal rights.

Morals differ between humans. What is immoral for one person may be perfectly acceptable for another.

So if 2 fully grow adults / teenagers can share a body, why can a mother and child not ?

My statement "two people cannot reside in one body" was to imply that the mother has the rights to abort the fetus. There are occasions in which conjoined twins can live together, however if you look at this example of "conjoined twins",

you can see that the other baby (which is the other head) must be removed and die so that it can save the other one.
This is much like the mother and fetus scenarios.

Thoughts, memories, emotions, and consciousnesses do not define a human. Tons of other species have all these as well.

No they do not. A lot are not self-aware.
Besides, in my opinion there is a difference between the value of life and the value of consciousness/etc..
Take me for example. I'm a girl with emotions, thoughts, memories, and has inter-personal relationships with others. I am self-aware. I am alive.
Bacteria do not have emotions, cannot have thoughts, memories, have inter-personal relationships with others, are not self-aware. Though it's still alive.
We kill bacteria all the time with antibacterial soap and antibiotics.

The only think that defines a human is its DNA. Which even a single human cell has. So a multicellular organisms with human DNA are human too.

I don't believe that the only thing that defines a human is their DNA. There is a lot more to a human than their DNA. We have art, we have intelligence, we have consciousness, we can build advanced technology that no other organism on earth can, we can communicate with each other with language, and there are possibly hundreds more that I had yet to mention.

Moral rights ? Wtf is that. The only rights I know of are legal rights.

Morals differ between humans. What is immoral for one person may be perfectly acceptable for another.

So there is no universal consensus on what is and what is not moral.

Moral rights do exist. Just because morality is subjective (in which I agree with you on), morality still exists.
Moral rights exist in the same way morality does.
For example, don't you believe that killing others is wrong? Therefore, you can say that no one should be killed for no reason. That is a moral right. Rights can be moral.
Besides, legal rights are already partially based on morals.

This is twisted just because you can have a child dose not mean you should bring one in the world. Children brought into this world by a single woman has very little chance of making much of a life. Now I said single not divorced or widow that a total a different picture the children can do fine. Most of these children brought into this world are teenage moms basically children them selves. under 18 and no support that an automatic abortion case as far as I am concerned. The government should not have to pay (WE THE TAX PAYERS) I should say for some juveniles stupid behavior.

My statement "two people cannot reside in one body" was to imply that the mother has the rights to abort the fetus. There are occasions in which conjoined twins can live together, however if you look at this example of "conjoined twins",

you can see that the other baby (which is the other head) must be removed and die so that it can save the other one.
This is much like the mother and fetus scenarios.

Of course not all conjioned twins survive. Its quite common for on the them to need to be killed and removed. You generally pick the weaker one.

The mother doesn't abort the kid because it poses a heath risk to her, she aborts it merely because she wants to.

A mother will not die because she has a child, if the child poses a heath risk to the mother, the mothers body with automatically abort it in the form of a miscarriage. That's what miscarriages are. It means something significant happened to the fetus(like it died or something) and it is now a threat to the mother. When a fetus becomes a threat to the mother, the mothers body automatically chucks it, its a defensive reaction that is intended for the survival of the mother so that she can continue to produce more offspring.

Women do not get abortions because the child poses a health risk to her, they get them because they want to have unprotected sex with tons of guys but don't want to deal with a kid.

And that's why I don't support abortion. If a woman wants to sleep around and have unprotected sex with random guys, that's her business, I could care less, but if she gets pregnant as a result. I do not think that she should be able to simply abort it then to back to sleeping around and get pregnant all over again. I have a problem with that. I think, if she gets pregnant as a result of her own inability to control basic urges, then she should be forced to keep the child and raise it. I think that the pregnancy should get logged, that way she cannot simply abandon the child the moment it is born, we have enough of that already. and she should be forced to go get a job and raise it.

Allow me to simplify, I do not support abortion because some women abuse it, and that ruins it for everyone else.

No they do not. A lot are not self-aware.
Besides, in my opinion there is a difference between the value of life and the value of consciousness/etc..
Take me for example. I'm a girl with emotions, thoughts, memories, and has inter-personal relationships with others. I am self-aware. I am alive.
Bacteria do not have emotions, cannot have thoughts, memories, have inter-personal relationships with others, are not self-aware. Though it's still alive.
We kill bacteria all the time with antibacterial soap and antibiotics.

Whether or not an animal is self aware is subjective. Only the animal itself truly knows.

The value of a consciousness should be higher than the value of a life. your consciousness = you, its everything you are, without it your consciousness you are merely but a brain dead shell. You live on, but what was you, is gone.

I don't believe that the only thing that defines a human is their DNA. There is a lot more to a human than their DNA. We have art, we have intelligence, we have consciousness, we can build advanced technology that no other organism on earth can, we can communicate with each other with language, and there are possibly hundreds more that I had yet to mention.

That's simply because we are more intelligent than other species, intelligence has nothing to do with being self aware, a dog is self aware and dogs are really stupid.

Moral rights do exist. Just because morality is subjective (in which I agree with you on), morality still exists.
Moral rights exist in the same way morality does.
For example, don't you believe that killing others is wrong? Therefore, you can say that no one should be killed for no reason. That is a moral right. Rights can be moral.
Besides, legal rights are already partially based on morals.

I believe killing people for no reason is wrong, but if you have a reason for it, then I say go for it.

My statement "two people cannot reside in one body" was to imply that the mother has the rights to abort the fetus. There are occasions in which conjoined twins can live together, however if you look at this example of "conjoined twins",

you can see that the other baby (which is the other head) must be removed and die so that it can save the other one.
This is much like the mother and fetus scenarios.

Of course not all conjioned twins survive. Its quite common for on the them to need to be killed and removed. You generally pick the weaker one.

The mother doesn't abort the kid because it poses a heath risk to her, she aborts it merely because she wants to.

A mother will not die because she has a child, if the child poses a heath risk to the mother, the mothers body with automatically abort it in the form of a miscarriage. That's what miscarriages are. It means something significant happened to the fetus(like it died or something) and it is now a threat to the mother. When a fetus becomes a threat to the mother, the mothers body automatically chucks it, its a defensive reaction that is intended for the survival of the mother so that she can continue to produce more offspring.

Women do not get abortions because the child poses a health risk to her, they get them because they want to have unprotected sex with tons of guys but don't want to deal with a kid.

And that's why I don't support abortion. If a woman wants to sleep around and have unprotected sex with random guys, that's her business, I could care less, but if she gets pregnant as a result. I do not think that she should be able to simply abort it then to back to sleeping around and get pregnant all over again. I have a problem with that. I think, if she gets pregnant as a result of her own inability to control basic urges, then she should be forced to keep the child and raise it. I think that the pregnancy should get logged, that way she cannot simply abandon the child the moment it is born, we have enough of that already. and she should be forced to go get a job and raise it.

If she cannot do that then she has proven herself to be incapable as a mother and the child should be taken away from her, and she should get a court ordered tubal ligation.

There are tons of women, hoards of them, who go out and have unprotected sex with 20 guys and get pregnant, and go get an abortion and do it all over again, or they actually have the child and the moment its born throw it into a dumpster like its a empty coke bottle(google baby found in dumpster for more info) and go out and repeat the process all over again.

I have a problem with that, one its taxing on the doctors who have to waste time with repeat customers, and two, i have a major problem with child abandonment. I think any mother or father who abandons their child, regardless of whether it dies or not, should be executed.

No they do not. A lot are not self-aware.
Besides, in my opinion there is a difference between the value of life and the value of consciousness/etc..
Take me for example. I'm a girl with emotions, thoughts, memories, and has inter-personal relationships with others. I am self-aware. I am alive.
Bacteria do not have emotions, cannot have thoughts, memories, have inter-personal relationships with others, are not self-aware. Though it's still alive.
We kill bacteria all the time with antibacterial soap and antibiotics.

Whether or not an animal is self aware is subjective. Only the animal itself truly knows.

The value of a consciousness should be higher than the value of a life. your consciousness = you, its everything you are, without it your consciousness you are merely but a brain dead shell. You live on, but what was you, is gone.

I don't believe that the only thing that defines a human is their DNA. There is a lot more to a human than their DNA. We have art, we have intelligence, we have consciousness, we can build advanced technology that no other organism on earth can, we can communicate with each other with language, and there are possibly hundreds more that I had yet to mention.

That's simply because we are more intelligent than other species, intelligence has nothing to do with being self aware, a dog is self aware and dogs are really stupid.

Moral rights do exist. Just because morality is subjective (in which I agree with you on), morality still exists.
Moral rights exist in the same way morality does.
For example, don't you believe that killing others is wrong? Therefore, you can say that no one should be killed for no reason. That is a moral right. Rights can be moral.
Besides, legal rights are already partially based on morals.

I believe killing people for no reason is wrong, but if you have a reason for it, then I say go for it.

Then hypothetically speaking, if someone hired me to kill you for a dollar, why shouldn't I?

You want humanity as a whole to be emotionless psychopaths? Then go ahead and start your own 7.8 billions worth of business venture.

That being said, you also just unwittingly gave the means for a woman to abort her pregnancy via her own reasoning alone. So what's this "I don't support abortion" bullshit you're ranting about?

Then hypothetically speaking, if someone hired me to kill you for a dollar, why shouldn't I?

You want humanity as a whole to be emotionless psychopaths? Then go ahead and start your own 7.8 billions worth of business venture.

That being said, you also just unwittingly gave the means for a woman to abort her pregnancy via her own reasoning alone. So what's this "I don't support abortion" bullshit you're ranting about?

A dollar is hardly worth it, it will not cover all the expenses + profit + risk. You have no business sense. You lose money if you do that.

Gas, + Bullets, + Time and Effort in scoping a proper location + all the other expenses all ad up to more than a dollar. Thus you just lost money. To stay in business you need to at least break even.

Try 100,000.00 dollars at least.

Probably need more than that. Premeditated murder is a capital crime. Major risk your taking. So the money would need to be > the risk + expenses + profit.

And I don't support abortions because some women abuse the fuck out of it. And these women ruin it for the rest.

If you want to go sleep around with random men, that's your business. I could give 2 shits. But if you get pregnant as a result, I believe she should be forced to keep it. I don't think its right for the tax payers to be paying for expensive medical procedures for women who have no self control. If abortion has to be done, I think it should be on her dollar not mine.

Then hypothetically speaking, if someone hired me to kill you for a dollar, why shouldn't I?

You want humanity as a whole to be emotionless psychopaths? Then go ahead and start your own 7.8 billions worth of business venture.

That being said, you also just unwittingly gave the means for a woman to abort her pregnancy via her own reasoning alone. So what's this "I don't support abortion" bullshit you're ranting about?

A dollar is hardly worth it, it will not cover all the expenses + profit + risk. You have no business sense. You lose money if you do that.

Gas, + Bullets, + Time and Effort in scoping a proper location + all the other expenses all ad up to more than a dollar. Thus you just lost money. To stay in business you need to at least break even.

Try 100,000.00 dollars at least.

Probably need more than that. Premeditated murder is a capital crime. Major risk your taking. So the money would need to be > the risk + expenses + profit.

And I don't support abortions because some women abuse the fuck out of it. And these women ruin it for the rest.

If you want to go sleep around with random men, that's your business. I could give 2 shits. But if you get pregnant as a result, I believe she should be forced to keep it. I don't think its right for the tax payers to be paying for expensive medical procedures for women who have no self control. If abortion has to be done, I think it should be on her dollar not mine.

Bullshit, when that's not your original moral conduct of "if you have a reason for it, then I say go for it" at all. So who gives a fuck with your belief and your business sense, when according to your own words a reason is all we needed in order to kill someone. Unless your moral was faulty in the first place, due to the contradiction that you just unwittingly applied.

BTW, if you hadn't notice it by now, I fully intend to make you eat your illogical contradictions whether you like it or not.

Bullshit, when that's not your original moral conduct of "if you have a reason for it, then I say go for it" at all. So who gives a fuck with your belief and your business sense, when according to your own words a reason is all we needed in order to kill someone. Unless your moral was faulty in the first place, due to the contradiction that you just unwittingly applied.

BTW, if you hadn't notice it by now, I fully intend to make you eat your illogical contradictions whether you like it or not.

Survival Cannibalism - You have do whatever it takes to survive, 9 times out of 10 if there is nothing else to eat, people will resort to survival cannibalism. Almost all animal species do this, its natural. An example of survival cannibalism is if you and a group of people are stranded in the mountains or forest and you have exhausted for food supply.

Self defense - it is fine to kill someone who is attempting to attack you.

Defense of others - it is fine to kill someone who it attacking another individual who is not capable of defending him or herself - such as a mentally disabled person, handicap people, elderly people, infants, ect.

Other reasons people kill people

Money - Although forensics are getting too good so its not really worth it anymore
Political Gain
Power
Boredom
Just cause.

So yes technically all a person needs to kill someone is a reason. Has nothing to do with whether its legal or moral.

All a person needs to do something is motivation. Without motivation nobody does anything.

I have a problem with Infanticide, a child cannot defend itself. That includes abandoning a child as it is not capable of fending for itself and will die on its own.

Bullshit, when that's not your original moral conduct of "if you have a reason for it, then I say go for it" at all. So who gives a fuck with your belief and your business sense, when according to your own words a reason is all we needed in order to kill someone. Unless your moral was faulty in the first place, due to the contradiction that you just unwittingly applied.

BTW, if you hadn't notice it by now, I fully intend to make you eat your illogical contradictions whether you like it or not.

Survival Cannibalism - You have do whatever it takes to survive, 9 times out of 10 if there is nothing else to eat, people will resort to survival cannibalism. Almost all animal species do this, its natural. Its

Self defense - it is fine to kill someone who is attempting to attack you.

Defense of others - it is fine to kill someone who it attacking another individual who is not capable of defending him or herself - such as a mentally disabled person, handicap people, elderly people, infants, ect.

Other reasons people kill people

Money - Although forensics are getting too good so its not really worth it anymore
Political Gain
Power
Boredom
Just cause.

So yes technically all a person needs to kill someone is a reason. Has nothing to do with whether its legal or moral.

All a person needs to do something is motivation. Without motivation nobody does anything.

I have a problem with Infanticide, a child cannot defend itself. That includes abandoning a child.

And that gives you the rights to oppress women to go through unplanned pregnancy? How should I not to perceive your biased oppression towards women as a form of attack on their persons? As in what about the men who abandoned the women in the first place?